Life after 'Sequester': Does Federal Budget Have $1 Trillion in Fat to Cut?

By Trumbull, Mark | The Christian Science Monitor, March 7, 2013 | Go to article overview

Life after 'Sequester': Does Federal Budget Have $1 Trillion in Fat to Cut?


Trumbull, Mark, The Christian Science Monitor


The newly launched "sequester" federal spending cuts are large large enough to total more than $1 trillion if they were to stay in place for 10 years.

That wont happen, because no one likes the sequesters arbitrary approach to the budget, in which all programs are supposed to be cut by the same percentage.

But deficit hawks say that deficit savings of at least that magnitude are needed to avoid a dangerous buildup of government debt.

Which raises the question: How hard would that be?

Conflicting answers to that question are as close as the latest TV sound bites or polls of public opinion.

On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio implied fiscal discipline isnt that hard. He called for an even more aggressive goal: getting the deficit down to zero in 10 years (something the sequester doesnt achieve). He said House Republicans will leave the sequester in place until it is supplanted by a balanced-budget plan.

view_extra

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California, in her own Thursday press briefing, said such spending cuts hurt middle-class families, and said new tax revenue must be part of the solution.

They won't touch these tax breaks for the wealthiest and the special interests, she said, complaining about the Republican position.

Part of this debate, of course, is about such different partisan viewpoints. But, whether one is a deficit hawk or not, its fair to say that imposing this restraint is no cakewalk.

The $1.2 trillion in sequester cuts (over the course of a decade) would equal nearly $1 for every $10 in the discretionary portion of the budget, where most of the sequester cuts fall.

Critics counter that what Washington calls a spending cut is really just a lowering of expected increases in spending. That's true under the sequester up to a point. Yes, the nominal dollar amount of discretionary spending would be higher in 2022 than in 2013 by nearly $200 billion.

But discretionary spending would actually fall significantly, year-over-year, in both 2013 and 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says. And even though spending would then start ticking upward, it wouldnt keep pace with projected inflation of about 2 percent a year let alone with population growth of about 1 percent per year, the CBO adds.

Still, most experts agree that theres fat to be cut. While private-sector productivity chugged ahead at an annual pace of 1.5 percent or better during the 1990s, public-sector productivity held almost flat, according to a 2006 study by the consulting firm McKinsey.

The question is where to cut, how to cut, and how fast.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma has made it part of his job description to document examples of waste and duplicated effort in federal agencies.

In just the past two years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,362 duplicative programs accounting for at least $364. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Life after 'Sequester': Does Federal Budget Have $1 Trillion in Fat to Cut?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.